Duke, Cinergy to Merge

It's been a busy morning, so I haven't had time for the usual Monday news clips, but I had to make time for this very important announcement just off the wire:

Cinergy (CIN) and Duke Energy (DUK) today announced they have entered into a definitive merger agreement to create an energy company with approximately $36 billion in market capitalization and 5.4 million retail customers.

The merger, which was unanimously approved by both companies' boards of directors, will create a combined energy company with assets totaling more than $70 billion.

The combined company, to be named Duke Energy Corporation, will have approximately $27 billion in annual revenues and $1.9 billion in annual net income (combined figures as of Dec. 31, 2004). It will own and/or operate approximately 54,000 megawatts of electric generation domestically and internationally -- relying on a diverse fuel mix of nuclear, coal, natural gas and hydroelectric power to meet customers' needs.

More later.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Comments

Norris McDonald said…

Wow. This is BIG news. Two of my favorite companies are getting married. I hope I at least get an invite to the reception. I'll bet there will be plenty of shrimp, half shells, crab meat, vino and other assorted goodies.

Does anyone have a convenient list of their combined nuclear plants? Wow again. The utility industry moves fast in some areas. What are the implications here?

May 9, 2005 at 6:15 PM

Kelly L Taylor said…

Norris,
Their combined nuclear capacity is the same as Duke's nuclear capacity alone.
"Cinergy is one of the largest non-nuclear electric suppliers in the U.S...." OK, make that 'was!'

http://www.cinergy.com/About_Cinergy_Corp/Corporate_Overview/default_corporate_fact_sheet.asp

Kelly

May 9, 2005 at 8:38 PM

Kelly L Taylor said…

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

May 9, 2005 at 8:42 PM

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog